>> rose: welcome to the program and happy new year. we begin this 2017 with ian bremmer of eurasia group. >> what worries me, not about the geopolitical recession concept, which is sitting across the table from you over the past years, if you had asked me, ian, do you think there is any real possibility of a serious war between major countries, i would have said nothing proximate. i look at 2017 and i can no longer say that. i don't think it's going to happen but it's possible. >> rose: we continue talking about megyn kelly moving to nbc with brian stelter of cnn. >> the author of the campaign as trump wages the campaign against her, kelly was rising.

yes, she's controversial but she's a breakout within this television news orbit, but to see her leave and go to nbc, which weçó#gezezxdçó noái[oá a bombshell today and says a lot about where tv is now. >> rose: we conclude withñ9?c an interview i did with megyn kelly in november of 2017. >> when i sit até@ the anchor k and look into the lens, i honestly feel like i can see you out there, i am, i think, in some ways the best version of myself. it feels like a real connection and it'sñiieqó invigorating, i] given that and my love for my colleagues, leaving fox news would be very tough, but there happen to be people i love even more than my colleagues, and they must be factored in as well. >> rose: ian bremmer, brian stelter and an interview with megyn kelly, when we continue.

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ian bremmer is here. he is the president of the political risk consulting firm eurasia group. every year the firm publishes a list of top global political risks. it released this year's report this morning, it is called "top risk 2017, the geopolitical recession." i am pleased to have ian bremmer back at this table. welcome. >> good evening to you, charlie. happy new year. >> rose: i don't know if it's happy or not. you talk about a global recession as you begin talking

about risks. >> we're here. that's already half the battle. you and i have been doing this a bunch of years, now, and i had the firm 20 years ago, we've never seen a geopolitical environment this unstable as the one we're now entering into in 2017. you have economic recessions every seven or eight years, since world war ii. geopolitical recessions don't happen as often, but now the end of this old order and the united states saying, look, we don't want, not just to be the cop for the world, which has been coming for a long time, but we're not going to be the architect on trade. we're not going to promote our values globally. no one else is prepared to do that. the election of trump, the united states is now the driver of geopolitical uncertainty in the world stage, and that's a new thing. that's not something we have been dealing with. >> rose: let's break down

geopolitical recession. it means what, specifically? you outlined some suggestions. the u.s. is not playing the roll it has played before, or at least if you believe the president-elect doesn't plan to play that role because voters don't seem to want it to play that role. >> i think that's right. i think it's a combination of both. voters have been less happy, less enthused with the idea of america taking lots of burdens on that its allies want or multi-lateral institutions want for some time now. erywhere but here.ilding >> exactly, and trump, i think, played that very well domestically, when hillary clinton, frankly, did not. globalist was a dirty word, and at the republican national convention when he got the nomination, he used that extremely effectively. it speaks well to the average american. but it's not just the united states, of course. we talk about geopolitical recession, we recognize america's allies in europe are weak and fragmented, facing enormous internal challenges. we recognize that the middle east is in disarray, that asia

has stronger leaders. china, of course, is a much more willing to provide leadership economically that challenges u.s. architecture and norms and values, but in no other way. the russians are willing to do that in terms of security, but in no other way. you put all those things together, then you elect president trump, come january 20th, i think we can say americana is over and we enter this geopolitical recession. what's interesting about it is it's not going to be an enormous challenge for the united states at home. the global economy recession in 2008 affected everyone globally. geopolitically, while europe bleeds and an arms race in asia and territorial disputes in lots of the world, here in the united states we don't have a problem. >> rose: president obama has said to me and the others, when

i am around the world, they want america to lead. is that no longer true, or is it that america doesn't want to lead? >> look, it's true, and it's good that obama has come to recognize that, after eight years of the presidency, because, of course, a lot of those same leaders would say, look, to obama, and say, you have not been leading, sir. >> rose: is that only having to do with war in the middle east, or does it have to do with global economic leadership? >> it has to do clearly with global economic leadership, and there was a period of time after the 2008 recession when the chinese suddenly said how the american model doesn't work anymore, we should move away from it. >> rose: we don't want that to be anymore. >> exactly. but more than that, it's also about american values. i mean, and you go and talk to leaders in asia who desperately say they want the united states, and part of that is they believe that the united states created these multi-lateral institutions, like the u.n., like the i.n.f., like the world

bank, they want the americans upholding the standards, the americans and allies and, you know, trump saying i would much rather work with putin who's a strong man who can get it done, and the values inside that country doesn't necessarily matter, that is unnerving to american allies. that's hard to put your finger on it, the soft power, leading but example, but it's important. >> rose: is he different than a lot of other american leaders? they didn't ask those questions when they were making nuclear agreements, they didn't ask about what are you doing about this minority group in your country or this other minority group. they said, how can we make a nuclear agreement that's in both or national interests? they weren't stressing american values, they were stressing america's security. >> and kissinger, of course, is sort of one extreme side of that. you could argue jimmy carter is perhaps the other.

>> rose: he's more like kissinger than jimmy carter. >> that's true, but america still has been promoting, for example, a free media. america has been promoting free markets globally. >> rose: rule of law. ule of law. and i think we can make pretty clear that trump's inclinations are that the american presidency has been diminished because american cooperations are not acting in a patriotic panner and america media is not acting in a patriotic manner. and he thinks america would have a stronger negotiating position if they were and that's an interesting change. >> rose: in china, isn't there more respect than certainly was ten years ago for copyright protection, those kinds of things? >> yes. >> rose: they have gradually moved to accept answer tans of those kinds of things.

>> right. >> rose: those american values. >> absolutely. and american values that became global values. >> rose: still cares about those values, i assume. a businessman needs predictability and expectation that contracts will be honored in order to do business. >> the importance of honoring contracts, i think, is something that's going to be an interesting question to watch under a trump administration. i don't know if you want to go there. >> rose: no, i do want to go there. >> clearly, conflicts of interest are going to be big. under trump, you are going to have to start covering the united states analytically a little more like south korea, where on the one hand, not like russia or china, but where on the one hand you have all the official interests of the u.s. and the cabinet and what they're saying politically, and then you have the trump organization, informing kitchen cabinet, where are the business interests, how do those things align and what

does a phone call with the taiwanees have to do that in addition to other policy interests? historically, we haven't had to do that kind of analysis in the u.s. you do that in a lot of countries around the world. that's going to be interesting and complicated if you are an american corporation or a foreign government trying to figure out what the best way so to work with this new president. >> rose: do you think the obama presidency in world affairs was a successful presidency? >> no. >> rose: no? no, and it really saddens me to say that, because this is a guy who clearly wanted the best, right? you have to argue, you look at the way he's comported himself in the presidency, you look at the values that he has lived up to himself, the way he has tried to lead by example with his family, friends, with his white house. you want this guy to be able to succeed, and yet, when you look at the obama administration's balance sheet internationally,

where they have succeeded and where they have failed, they've got this limited iran deal in their favor, they've got a cuba opening that was way overdue, you've got some good symbolism with hiroshima and pearl harbor in japan, but aside from that the transatlantic relationship is as?; bad it's been since wod war two, the russia view is abject despite it's hard the to criticize trump on the hacks precisely because obama has been so ineffectual at dealing with the russianons a bunch of issues. >> rose: why is that? why has he been ineffectual? >> rose: mm-hmm. well, look, i think, on the one hand, he wants to talk the strong principles and values, but there needs to be a recognition that if you don't actually care that much or if your allies really aren't going to be with you, you can't

necessarily accomplish the things you want. i think obama's had an administration where he thinks he's on the 20-yard-line, ready to kick the field goal. you recognize you have been pushed back to the 25, 35, 45, 50, at some point you have to kick a punt for the long time. >> rose: where are the cases where the europeans was not with obama or obama was not with them? >> certainly look at syria. >> rose: except syria. ukraine. >> rose: no, in terms of dealing with russia. >> i'd say on both of those. on ukraine, there is no question of the ability of the united states to get strong and firm measures against the russians and sanctions was like pulling teeth. the support from the europeans to actually help build ukraine as an economy to make them sustainable was virtually zero. germany absolutely wasn't there. the desire of the europeans to work with russia on energy, of course, half of them were

looking to ensure that, they were the ones who dk. >> rose: so was that a failure of obama's leadership? >> it's a failure of obama to realize that if the constellations of interests you have to play with don't line up to getting the russians out of ukraine or making ukraine a functional independent country then you probably will have to change your policy. i think that's true on syria and in handling the hacks as well. i think obama made a big mistake in handling the hacks, to be honest with you. >> rose: in what way? in the sense that if he truly believed this was a threat to american national security and he said he does and that it was delegitimizing the u.s. election, he said that was true as well, then you hit the russians hard and definitively when it's going on, you don't tell them to cut it off. >> rose: sooner rather than later. >> he said the reason he didn't do it is because he didn't want to be perceived in the united states as being partisan and supporting hillary. i said, mr. president, with all due respect, i have a lot of respect for this man, you are

the president, and perceptions of being perceived as partisan is a lot less important than ensuring the national security of the country that you run. and that's not leadership. >> rose: i think he also feared a russian reaction would spiral into something before the election, too. >> he did fear that, and, yet, he was, as a consequence, unable to respond to a clear and direct threat to an american institution that we all hold as incredibly important. >> rose: when president-elect trump talks about putin, what is it you think is at heart in that relationship? or the core? >> so we can focus -- there are a lot of things we can focus on first. easy to score points. if you're trying to put points on the board, easy for trump to say, look, barack says assad must go. we know that's foolish.

he's still there.%sj workxd withx now, there is also the issue that trump does not support american exceptionalism, and this is a real bane for putin as well. so the idea that there is a transactional foreign policy that occurs between two adults that are strong men that can do business together is one that's attractive to trump and putin. but when i add up all of that, that doesn't quite get me to the level, the effusive level of consistent support that america first trump seems to be

promoting -- >> rose: who doesn't believe in american exceptionalism, you said? >> trump clearly has said we should not be promoting american democracy and trying to export it abroad. he says we look like hypocrites and it doesn't do us any good -- >> rose: other people have said that. that's not a unique position to donaldçóçów3 trump. a lot of people have said, look, untry and say they shouldo to a accept america's version of democracy. >> right. >> rose: they have a different culture, system, evolution. you know, we can't, therefore, go in to, iraq, after it collapses and say we're going to impose an american political system on you. >> true. >> rose: they won't accept it. but putin looks at obama, he looks at hi these are people who fundamentally believe that their system is better than mine and they are willing to try to de legitimize me as a consequence, he absolutely believes that, and sees trump as someone who will

not do that. >> rose: what should have obama done other than simply retaliate in kind, which putin already believed they were doing? >> yeah, i think there would have had to be strong responses that were, at the time, they weren't just about sanctions, they would have had to include direct cyber attacks as well -- >> rose: what would we have attacked and -- >> there was a seriesw3 of recommendations that were made to the presidentñr by c.i.a., these are the options in front ofr them because he thought they were dangerous.ç$@n+ @& and -- >> rose: they might have been embarrassing to vladimir putin. >> or could have frozen assets. >> rose: there is a lot we don't know. they're not tellingu

everything they did in retaliation. you lookçó at what they're tellg us and what they did, one assumes there is some level of commensurateness with those two things. what they have done publicly is extremely weak teaxdñ before trump comes in=."r and pn can look magnanimous and say i'm not going to pay attention because you're irrelevant and i'll work withñiçóçów3 my boy d. >> rose: 2016 was successful for putin. >> yes. >> rose: he came ou out of syria as a power player. >> and a person who empowered bashar al-assad who is now on the winning side, who is now eradicating rebel forces wherever he can find them, first in aleppo and now surrounding damascus. >> assad must go, turns out obama must go, right? how many people would have expected that five years ago? >> rose: obama leave power,

assad still in power ( applause ) of vladimir putin. >> primarily because of vladimir putin. >> rose: and vladimir putin along with iran and turkey gets credit for -- >> they're the ones putting an end to the war, they're the ones coordinating the cease fire. there are few rebels to speak of at this point. clearly i.s.i.s. has had territory taken away from them and that's positive. but if you want to look at 2016, you want to see who's the man of the year. it's a guy running the economy not doing particularly well with an educational systemçó falling apart, not a global power anymore. putin with that hand has still been able to run circles around other countries. >> rose: and the largestçó nuclear force in the world. >> number one, u.s. number two. >> rose: china, before i go to china, tell me where war is most likely to break out. >> this worries me, this isn't about the geopolitical recession concept, which is sitting across the table from you over the past years, if you had asked me, ian, do you think there is any real

possibility of a serious war between major countries, i would have said nothing proximate. i look at 2017, and i can no longer say it's impossible. i think it's going to happen, but i think it's possible. >> rose: where is it possible? i think it is possible that because of the profound lack of trust between the major countries in the world, accidents can escalate to a greater degree. so the possibility of an armed confrontation over north korea is now, i think, possible. >> rose: so lay out the scenario for an armed confrontation over north korea. >> so trump tweets today -- >> rose: yes, it's not going to happen, that they're going to have long-range missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to the continental america. >> in other words, trump, even before he becomes president decides he's going to set his own red line.

>> rose: right. we know red lines have gotten us in trouble before, particularly over north korea and a bunch of administrations have been hoisted on that. so maybe he just says this and fails. but what if he means it? what if he means they are not going to develop it, that they will be stopped. >> rose: president obama said they would not tolerate iran having nuclear weapons. >> for example, or they said that chemical weapons would not be tolerated in syria and all these things. >> rose: they got rid of the chemical weapons. >> they did. they did. point being that the ability to prevent north korea from continuing to develop this program is something the united states has extremely limited capability to ensure. we can get the chinese to engage with us on some multi-lateral sanctions, and they have been incredibly ineffective at getting the north koreans to the table. so either trump will have to have a better relationship with china than heretofore he has

shown an inclination to have, and he'll get them on board and say let's come up with creative diplomacy, carrots and sticks, recognizing we have 20 nuclear weapons, recognizing they have an icbm program, and what can we give them to work with us? thus far, that seems unlikely. or he's going to have to take a hard line, and a hard line is what? he's going to militarily attack north korea? or a hard line is, what, he's going to sanction the chinese because they're not cutting off the north koreans? that has the ability to get the north koreans really agitated, and you could imagine that the north koreans would engage militarily innary backyard and create accidents. >> rose: so what if the u.s. would take out whatever nuclear facilities they have, take them out militarily, what would happen? >> maybe nothing, right? >> rose: i mean, wouldn't the rest of the world applaud? >> a lot of the world would applaud. let's see where the south koreans are at that point. we have a south korean president that is going to be forced out,

and she's quite likely going to be replaced in quick elections with the opposition in south korea. south korea suddenly will be working more closely with the north koreans. japan will feel isolated. trump will seem like he's pushing. >> countries aren't as convinced that united states is there for them over the long term, but still obama is right that when you look around the world, there are a lot of countries that would like to see more u.s. you ask if they will get it under the trump administration, the answer for most of them is no. >> rose: in the middle east, that includes the sunni countries? >> i think -- i was just there, and i met with a lot of leaders in the region, and i think that

the gulf arabs, they had such a hard time with obama, and they like the fact that trump is going after iran, and israel is not as relevant for them as it used to be, so the netanyahu relationship they don't care about much with trump. they are hopeful, especially with tillerson as secretary of state nominee, that trump's the businessman, he wants to fight terrorism, great, those countries want to fight terrorism. he can work with strong humanitarianism, is not going to criticize them on human rights, maybe trump is okay with them. at this point they don't know any of the trump people but they're cautiously hopeful. but the europeans are not, the asians are not, the chinese certainly are not. so if you ask me to sort of take a temperature of the room around the world of do people generally get unnerved or a little bit excited about trump coming on as president, largely tilts to the former. >> rose: they get unnerved.

because he's unpredictable and think he will be less of a friend to america first and mexico second. >> rose: i was looking at the piece called a method in trump's habits, everything is an initial offer, he's playing to his instincts as a real estate developer, which is you come in with a much larger demand than you expect to gerkts it's all negotiation. >> sure, and i do think there will be deals that will get done, but if you're in mexico today looking at ford closing a $1.74 billion plant in mexico because trump is telling u.s. corporations to become patriotic, that's very zero sum. if you're china and seeing trump talking about -- you're rçó your opening negotiating position they be way off the reservation. >> rose: what's wrong with asking your businesses to be patriotic? what's wrong with that?

>> there may be nothing wrong with it. we have been focusing on the rest of the world. if we're focusing this conversation on the united states and american workers, even clearly before becoming president, trump has shown he's willing to use the bully pulpit he will have to force american corporations to pay more attention to american jobs. that is clearly a useful thing. if he adds to that infrastructure spending, that will be great for the u.s. but you can't ask do other countries think that's good. >> rose: don't other countries do the same thing? isn't every leader committed to drive the best deal he can for his own economy and people? isn't that what being elected leader is about? >> free market capitalism as the americans have experienced it has historically been about creating a global market that is as efficient as possible. we have the biggest companies in the world. therefore, we want to have access to all of those markets. we want to let those corporations invest wherever they see fit to maximize

profitability. if trump is saying, you know what? that's fine, but these companies aren't really americans. they're global companies. we see corporate inversions where a big pharmaceutical company in the u.s. will headquarter itself in the u.k. for tax reasons, that i'm going to hit them hard. when he says that you the american corporation should be patriotic, chinese corporations are very patriotic. the question is will trump be successful? we hope he will be. we have to realize the number of jobs created by ford's announcement is 700, the number of jobs in mexico 1800. most to have the jobs are going to machines, but trump can build walls. they're not going to take drivers' jobs back. one of the things i worry about is whether trump will go after silicon valley in a much harder way. is he going to start saying, uber, you're evil because you're taking away all these jobs, and

i'm not going to allow you to create a system where american -- >> rose: and because the idea of retraining rings hollow to many people. >> that's right. you can absolutely force a company or five or fifty to open to provide more jobs, get tax credits and invest in the united states. that's not a bad bet. if labor doesn't matter as much to productivity then you shouldn't be producing as much in china because china is much more uncertain, you have to pay to have things shipped, the u.s. is going to get some of that, but there is not going to be jobs with that. >> rose: talk about xi jinping. it is said and rumored he would like to serve a longer term. he would like to have another term. >> it is said and rumored. he has not said or rumored that, but it is said is that and clearly he wants to be positioned as a very strong and great chinese leader. >> sure. >> rose: and he is. and he wants the perception of the chinese people to believe that. >> yes. >> rose: and that he believes

in peace and prosperity. >> right. >> rose: and yet he's a strong nationalist as well, all that. >> this is the big year for him. >> rose: exactly. having all those factors at play, how does he behave? >> i think that one of the most dangerous things globally about the trump presidency with his volatility, with his, you know, opening gambit, but let's see where we'll get, then you will bluster, say what i want and rip the script, this is a bad year to do that with the chinese because of their party congress and leadership change coming up up, this is the year xi jinping cannot be seen domestically to look weak at all, and his willingness to overreact to a trump administration seen as playing games on taiwan, on south china sea, on north korea, on tax, is potentially quite dangerous. >> rose: talk añi minute, speaking of 2017, angela merkel.

>> yeah. >> rose: weaker? weaker.4ú rose: might notçóñrñi? ill win. >> rose:çó willñi win.)3 iñi know i shouldn't say because -- >> rose: sometimes it's notñ9i true. >> i certainly didn't think trump was going to win, most of us didn't. but in the case of germany, unlike inñi france, where they could really win french elections, in germany group don't have the problems with the middle class, because the e.u. works for the germans. you don't have the economic issues. you can't have opposition to merkel saying i'll give you a vastly better economic deal. so merkel gets a fourth term but with a weaker, more fragmented coalition, and the one thing you and i have been able to count on out of europe since the 2008 financial crisis, no matter what pickle these countries get themselves into, merkel is a strong leader that responds. she can respond to brexit and

lead the response. respond to the greek crisis, spain, portugal, you name it. in 2017, there are just as many crises coming as in 2016. you haven'tñi resolved the refugee, terrorist problems. the french elections whnl be big, a weaker italian government, and merkel's not going to be able to respond the way she had before, and the u.s.-german relationship is also much more challenged now than it was when you were dealing with obama. so i think that europe looks particularly vulnerable because they haven't fixed any of the structural issues, economic, political or social that confront them and they no longer have the leadership to at least kick the can down the road. >> rose: back here, white house versus silicon valley. we saw trump invite all of the silicon valley in and many came, most of them came. >> yeah. >> rose: what do you see in terms of 2017? >> it would have been shocking

if a president-elect had invited a bunch of american c.e.o.s of any stripe and they had chosen not to come. i take it at face value, they invite, show up, have a photo op, that's great. but unlike carrier and boeing and ford, which are corporations -- i think they were deals that were fairly easy for them to do with the white house that make them look good that say you're committed to america, we're committed to america, great. silicon valley will be harder for a few reasons, right, one is that none of those guys supported trump with the exception of peter thile. this is libertarian, sfer, he got completely trounced in california. he does remember that. more importantly, they are the ones that run social need. i can't they are the ones who run the algorithms, the searches, amazon, google, facebook. there's going to be a real fight over informationñi and media spe

that trump feels he needs to control and chief strategist steve bannon feels they need to control. silicon valley will be on the opposite side of that. that's going to be a problem. then you have the issue that, on security, trump is going to take a much more intrusive perspective, as you've seen with his new c.i.a. director, appointment and many others. >> rose: law and order perspective? >> much more, and much more a we need to have access to this data, and we need to be intrusive in these organizations, and that's going to be a problem for the corporate in silicon valley, too. add to that the discussion we had about jobs, and silicon valley is the one part of the u.s. economy that's new yorking the cover off the ball, but that's all about trying to find ways to do great and efficient work without people. you can see how the single most important driver of u.s. and global economic growth is suddenly really on the wrong side of president trump. and i do wonder how many of those companies will say, you know what? being based in the u.s., we're

not sure we want to be doing as much of that under this guy, and we're not sure how we can come to an agreement with this guy. >> rose: you think this will be big? >> i do. >> rose: major companies with some of the highest margin cap in american business will say we're just going to move outside the country? >> i think they're going to see it's going to be hard for them to align their fundamental interests with what trump will be demanding. some of them will end up sucking it up and dealing. some will spin off some parts of their company that are particularly problematic and sell them for big money and do more in the united states. but they need the visas, and that's another place where trump is not showing an inclination to be supportive. >> rose: what is it about trump that worries most people? is it simply he seems to be playing by different rules and assumptions than everybody's played in the past? >> i come at this with the perspective at trump is my

president, that i want him to succeed and we need him to succeed, but i also wonder, to the extent that he fails, is he likely to fail more because he is incompetent, more because he is corrupt, or more because he is authoritarian i -- authoritarian? the first two don't bother me much, the third one does. the system can deal with incompetency, and you will have smart people and smart institutions around and decentralization. >> rose: some are around him, already. >> it's not competence or corruption. if there is something that worries me is if he fails because he's an authoritarian personality. in other words, if what trump really is driven by is the acquisition of power at the expense of others, and if he fails in that way, particularly if the u.s. has a crisis and he starts becoming more unpopular, he isn't seen as doing well, he goes doin' to the 20s and is

getting hit on all sides and refuses to take it, and you have a crisis, the ability of the u.s. executive to respond to a crisis, to do things that could actually truly undermine the long-term sustainability of democratic american institutions is real. >> rose: so the scenario is what? >> the scenario is -- you think about the 2008 financial crisis and how two u.s. presidents were able to cut checks for over a trillion dollars without any really congressional oversight, or look at 9/11 and the wars we got into, the patient act and -- the patriot act and all the rest, if donald trump is authoritarian, that inclination really damages our democracy long term in crisis. >> rose: so he loses any sense of paying attention to democracy and the democratic values this country has been founded on? >> he said putin's a stronger

leader than obama, and he said it in a way that -- we know that's true. >> rose: but he said that in terms of -- i mean, as i remember it, he said he's a stronger leader for russia than obama is. >> there is no question. >> rose: he wasn't recommending a putin for the united states. >> no, he was not. >> rose: he clearly wasn't. basically, for russia, he's a stronger leader. >> but if you look at -- i don't think we know enough yet to know which of those three he is. we know a lot of showmanship but we don't know his weakness. turns out obama's weakness i think was resolve and leadership when risks needed to be taken. i mean, obama's a guy who clearly has no problems accepting facts. trump doesn't like accepting facts. obama accepts facts -- >> rose: he listens and says, i don't believe it's right when they say russians were hacking

in the united states. >> when it turns out trump is not accepting facts, is that happening because of lack of competence? is it lacking because he has a different set of interests that support trump and his family and corporation? or is it because he actually wants to accumulate more power? and i think we don't know the answer to that. we all want him to succeed, but we have to recognize -- >> rose: or he has some reason for not wanting the facts to be real, for example. >> yeah, so that's the thing that worries me the most is we have a couple of weeks left before we get into a very different environment with our president. >> rose: thank you for coming. charlie, great to see you. >> rose: thank you. ian bremmer, the risks for 2017. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: megyn kelly, the anchor at fox news, announced today she was leaving the network after more than a dozen years. she will take a prominent role at nbc news. kelly has been the host of fox's second-most-watched program "the kelly file."

her national profile grew rapidly in the presidential campaign after a feud with trump in the first republican primary debate in august 2015. trump criticized kelly for asking him about his attitude toward women. >> you've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. your twitter account -- >> only rosie o'donnell. no, it wasn't. ( cheers and applause ) your twitter account -- ( cheers and applause ) >> thank you. for the record, it was well beyond rosie o'donnell. >> yes, i'm sure it was. >> rose: joining me is brian stelter, senior media correspondent for cnn. he is the host of "reliable sources." before that, he was at the "new york times." i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: tell me how big a story this is for you and for the media, because you cover the

media. >> for tv insiders, one of the biggest deals of the decade. >> rose: why? why? because, as you know, she is one of the rising stars in media on television. we saw it vividly in the u.s. presidential election. first is the very first debate, then throughout the campaign as trump waged the campaign against her, kelly's star was rising and rising and rising. owe, she's controversial, but she's clearly a breakout within this television news orbit, so to see her leave and go to nbc which people were not expecting is a bombshell and says where tv is now. >> rose: where is tv now. we're going through a media revolution and it's not happening as quickly as you might expect. the changes in television are gradual. there's still room for a $15 million deal or even a $20 million deal the way we saw today. there is still millions and millions and millions of people who want to turn on their tv and

watch megyn kelly, to watch charlie rose, as i may say, to watch these programs every day. you may have thought ten years ago that these are going to change everything and they, are mobile phones are changing everything, but not so quickly. megyn kelly clearly looked into landscape deciding she needed and wanted to leave fox, but wanted to go to a big network with a lot of opportunities to reach many millions of people, and that's nbc. >> rose: what does it mean for fox? >> that's the big question i i don't have an answer to yet. fox have not named a replacement for her today. they seemed a little caught off guard she's actually leaving. they say she will only stay till the end of the week. >> rose: the end of the week she's out of there? >> friday. there was a question for a couple of hours will she be back on the air at all. turns out, she will be on a few more days and that's it. you can understand why. if someone's moving out, you want them moving out as soon as possible. for fox, they stand at a cross

rhodes. megyn kelly was the closest thing to a trump critic and antagonist on fox. now she will be gone. will fox lean more heavily toward the pro trump network, will their identity as conservative news channel be more clear now? or will they surprise us with someone we're not expecting in the 9:00 p.m. hour. >> rose: it is said riewrp murdoch sons lockland and james very much wanted her to stay and represent the future of fox. >> that's right and this is a clear disappointment for all the murdochs. >> i was told a call this morning was a cordial conversation. nbc thinks they are making a big investment. she will have a daytime show, a primetime show sunday night and event coverage. where that leaves fox we'll see. >> rose: a huge footprint in

cable news. >> megyn kelly e one of the women who came forward alleging harassment by ailes, murdoch pressured him to resign, fox has not skipped a beat in the six months since. if you thought roger ailes leaving was going to be the downfall of fox news, certainly not. i expect it will continue to be a trump network. >> rose: in terms of their reporters, they have loot of political reporters who play it straight. >> they have real journalists. >> rose: guys in the business of opinions rather than reporting the news are separate. >> i like to call it fox is two things, a journalism and also a political operation. it is both things. >> rose: right. its core identity is conservative, but there are important and really impressive

reporters there as well. megyn kelly, it was not the right place for her. she didn't always feel supported at fox. there was occasionally sniping from her host bill o'reilly and shawn hannity, so it makes sense for her to set up açó new perch. sometimes this doesn't end up working well. >> rose: last time this was so amazing is when dan rather was about ready to go work for abc news and, instead, walter cronkite resigned so he could assume the chair at cbs. >> i think about katy couric in 2006 leaving as. she had an interesting case, at nbc, goes to cbs, anchors there several years. the view is it was not a complete success. she goes off into a daytime talk

show, not a complete success, now at yahoo. that could be a cautionary tale for megyn kelly. but the media world is changing every year as well. i don't know where we'll be in ten years. maybe in ten years, megyn kelly is anchoring the nightly news or todayñiçóñit( show. last april, she told you her dream job would be a little charlie rose, a little oprah and a little me. that's what she says she'll be doing now. that's what she told people around her, her advisors over the christmas holiday when she was trying to figure what decision to make, she concluded the nbc offer was the best way to get to the dream job of the newscast where she can show some of herself, do interviews, panel discussions and be free from the focus orbit. there will also be a prime time sunday night program. >> rose: let's talk about that first. >> i expect that in the fall, also. >> rose: what's that? that is a news magazine style program, maybe a little like

what brian williams tried to do five years ago. >> rose: that was a magazine show essentially, wasn't it? >> didn't happen more than a couple of years. a magazine show, a lot like "60 minutes." this you would expect to be moldled around megyn kelly. she has the backing of andy lack. lack has a broadcast sensibility so there is a lot of logic to him in this deal. she might be going up against "60 minutes" or up against a lot of other compelling sunday nighr programming. you thinkçó about even all the dramas on cable these days, it is a very competitive landscape, and for her to break through will be a tremendous challenge. therwe're a couple of weeks away from a new present. ian bremmer was talking about the prospects for authoritarian behaviors from this new president. the landscape for the country is very uncertain and for journalism is uncertain. a lot of journalists fearful

about what's to come from this administration. megyn kelly is a visible manifestation of what trump can do to journalists, attacking her by name, retweeting her, calling her ugly words. >> rose: did it hurt her? it hurt her among some of the core fox news viewers who now say they had enough of her, they don't want to see her and are glad she's leaving fox. how many? not loot but the voices are very loud. it hurt her among that trump loyal fan base that turns against whoever trump tells them to turn against, but didn't hurt her among the broader public. >> rose: you have a television program on cnn, reliable sources? >> 11:00 a.m. eastern time. >> rose: at the same time you do a whole lot of social media stuff. it seems to me the two have been connected. >> you know, i was talking to a colleague this week who said this is now a table news presidency, also a social media presidency. what it really is a cable social media presidency. that's what donald trump is doing and we'll see in a couple

of weeks when he takes over washington and we're seeing that from television hosts and journalists as well. that combination. i was talking to josh earnest about this, he says, politicians, journalists, we're not so different now. on both sides, there are the same challenges, trying to figure out new forms of distribution, new ways to reach an audience that feels real and authentic. you can love or late donald trump's tweets but he knows what he's doing with that device. >> rose: what is it when you're talking to journalists and reporters pondering this, what questions are they raising and fears they have with the trump administraion. >> i hear how bad will it really be. black listing reporters from the white house briefing room, audits of journalists through

the i.r.s., using espionage act to subpoena journalists and charge them with crimes for using information from anonymous sources about intelligence stories. david sanger of the niementz, a great example, someone who uses anonymous sources inside the intelligence agencies to tell us what's going on, what our government is doing for us. it is those kinds of investigative journalists who have very deep-seated fears about what the trump administration could do. the obama administration's record is not stellar on this either. >> rose: a story on this weekend about that point, about tracing down sources. >> that particular example, james rosen at fox and others. the trump administration could improve on those factors to have a chilling effect on journalism. the fear of seeing their i.r.s. status change, concern about

credentials, a rain dry list of -- a laundry list of possibilities. journalists are thinking about the worst case scenarios and hoping they don't happen. >> rose: thank you, brian. we close with a conversation i did with megyn kelly at barnes and noble on november 16, 2016. here's an excerpt from that conversation. >> rose: when you went to fox, was that a dream come true for you? >> absolutely. i just wanted to be on tv. >> rose: you just wanted to be on tv or did you want to report? >> i wanted to report the news on tv. i wanted to be a broadcast journalist. >> rose: there is a difference between wanting to be a star and wanting to be a reporter. >> oh, i know this, because not long after i got my job at fox, my old friend who has been on one season of "the apprentice" called me up and said, can you connect me with your agent and help get me an interview with your boss? i said, what do you want to do? she said, well, you know me, i

don't really want to do any reading or research, i just want to be in the spotlight. ( laughter ) i said, you know what? i will call my boss and see if there are any such openings available for a person like that and we'll get back to you. ( laughter ) but, no, i wanted to be a broadcast journalist which after much soul searching decided was the right fit for me and what i wanted to do. so i got this resume tape going, i started cold-calling news directors. some poor soul named bill lord at the abc affiliate in washington, d.c. gave me a job one day a week while i maintained my law job, and i loved it. i loved it. i felt so invigorated by it. after nine months, they offered me a full-time job, and fox offered me a full-time job and that's when i knew i would leave the law permanently. >> rose: came to new york when? >> i was in d.c. about three years and came here in january 2007. >> rose: your contract is up in 2017. >> yeah. >> rose: you're deciding what? what i want my life to be.

>> rose: yeah, and, so, give us some sense of that, though. >> well, i love my job. >> rose: and you love fox. i do. i've had a great 12 years there. >> rose: if you haven't had a television show, you've missed something. >> but i'm just saying, all the nonsense that gets spewed online, you know, the vitriol and just the nastiness, and there has been so much of it in the country this year, really, right, it's not just me or cable news, it's in the country, can really bring you down if you let it seep in. but when i sit at the anchor desk at night and look in that lens, honestly, i feel like i can see you out there, i am -- i think, in only ways, the best version of myself. it feels like a real connection, and it's invigorating, it's uplifting. and, so, given that and my love for my colleagues, you know, leaving fox news would be very tough, but there happen to be people i love even more than my

colleagues and they must be factored in as well. >> rose: you have spoken to me about having a show that was more in a sense like what i do that had a wider net than simply politics, having to do with culture and awe torse and musicians and a range of that. you had a little taste of that, but trump was a guest there. what is it that you hope you can add to your repertoire? >> well, that's the think about me. as i mentioned, i'm not a political person, yet i found myself in this job where pretty much all we discuss is politics. i like politics. i like covering it. it's exciting, but it's not all of who i am. so it would be great if i could somehow manage to weave in other things that i find interesting. and he's interviewing brian dennehey for "the ice man cometh." what kind of job is that? that's great! ( laughter ) >> rose: can you imagine doing

anything other than journalism now? >> sure. >> rose: what would it be? you know, i don't know. it would be something that allowed me to see a lot more of my kids. >> rose: really? honestly, i don't need all this. >> rose: you don't need the 20 million, do you? >> no. i don't need any million. is tha>> rose: yeah. >> listen i don't need any million. i don't. however, i'm going to get paid what i'm worth. ( applause ) >> rose: and where do you start the bidding? >> what i need is those people -- >> rose: yeah. -- and something to keep me intellectually stimulated. i don't think i would be happy just, like, selling the jam. it would have to be something i found interesting, and i don't cook. so it can't be -- the jam is out, even though the dream is always there for new yorkers. it's, vermont, so close, i don't know, the farmhouse. maybe i could learn how to ride a horse, right? ( laughter ) anyway, i don't know, charlie,

you know, if i were going to do something different, it would be something more holistic, i'll put it that way. >> rose: megyn kelly ad at barnes and noble. thank you for watching. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. "newshour", miles o'brian unpacks how new cooling techniques could heat up the techniques could heat up the nuclear power industry.

man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.